When is it okay to kill?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-06-2015, 02:01 AM
RE: When is it okay to kill?
(27-06-2015 01:35 AM)jthiret Wrote:  
(27-06-2015 01:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  There is no conceivable mechanism for what you are asserting.

I am not asserting anything I was providing links to the information about evolution and giving a synopsis of what it says about selection. Originally I was speaking about psychopathy as a disorder, then it was said
(26-06-2015 05:06 PM)yakherder Wrote:  If psychopathy provides an adaptive advantage within the context of modern civilization, then how can you objectively argue than it is not a more evolved trait than the ones you'd personally rather see humanity exhibit?

The point I was making is that psychopathy is not an adaptive advantage by explaining how that killing people is a disadvantage to a social species such as ourselves and in from the fact that we separate psychopaths from society they can not reproduce to create more psychopaths making psychopathy a disadvantage.

The mechanisms of natural selection are that a more advantageous trait allows for more reproduction, which will then in turn overtime alter the traits of "all individuals in a population" which is directly from the link I provided from the Berkeley 101 section on natural selection.

Psychopathy is a selective disadvantage, because simply put we remove psychopaths from society limiting their ability to reproduce and in turn limiting their effects on the population.

Selection works on individuals and only on individuals.

For example, if psychopathy provided a significant advantage to individuals but caused the species to go extinct, then that is what would happen.

There is no selection at the species level. And not every trait affects every member of a population.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-06-2015, 02:38 AM
RE: When is it okay to kill?
Over the centuries that christians have existed, they have murdered somewhere between 100 - 200 million of those who refused to submit to their will. So, from their point of view, it's OK to kill anyone that disagrees with them.

On the other hand, one of their ten commandments says that thou shalt not kill. However, it's only at number 7 (ta dah!) so that's how they get around it. If it's only at number 7, it can't be that important, can it? Apparently, it's more important to recognise that he 'is the lord they god' than it is not to kill.

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 02:47 AM
RE: When is it okay to kill?
(27-06-2015 02:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  Selection works on individuals and only on individuals.

For example, if psychopathy provided a significant advantage to individuals but caused the species to go extinct, then that is what would happen.

There is no selection at the species level. And not every trait affects every member of a population.

Selection is not the mechanism that affects the individual. It is genetic variation that acts on the individual. Selection is the mechanism of how the more advantageous trait is selected by allowing the individual with the more advantageous genetic variation to reproduce and thus altering the traits of the population,over time.
So this may just be a miscommunication of the terms I think we are saying the same things,in general , just using the wrong terms.

It is true that not "every" trait affects every member of a population. That is close to the point I was making. Only the most advantageous traits, are reproduced and only "over time" can those specific traits alter the population.
My only assertion was that psychopathy is not an advantageous trait that can lead to enough reproduction to alter the population and over time may be no longer present in our societies.

That last part might be wishful thinking, but my coffee is starting to kick in so who knows......... the wonders of caffeineSmile

“ moral virtue comesabout as a result of habit.” --Aristotle

Secular Ethos
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 06:48 AM
RE: When is it okay to kill?
(27-06-2015 01:35 AM)jthiret Wrote:  Psychopathy is a selective disadvantage, because simply put we remove psychopaths from society limiting their ability to reproduce and in turn limiting their effects on the population.

"Although psychopaths in the workplace typically represent only a small percentage of the staff, they are most common at higher levels of corporate organizations and their detrimental effects (for example, increased bullying, conflict, stress, staff turnover, absenteeism, reduction in productivity) often causes a ripple effect throughout an organization, setting the tone for an entire corporate culture.[138]

Academics refer to psychopaths in the workplace as workplace psychopaths, executive psychopaths, corporate psychopaths, business psychopaths, successful psychopaths, office psychopaths, white collar psychopaths, industrial psychopaths, organizational psychopaths or occupational psychopaths.

Hare reports that about 1 per cent of the general population meets the clinical criteria for psychopathy.[139] Hare further claims that the prevalence of psychopaths is higher in the business world than in the general population. Figures of around 3-4% have been cited for more senior positions in business.[42] Even with this small percentage, corporate psychopaths can do enormous damage when they are positioned in senior management roles.[140]

James identifies psychopathy as one of the dark triadic forces in the workplace, the others being narcissism and Machiavellianism.[141]

Workplace psychopaths are often charming to staff above his/her level in the workplace hierarchy but abusive to staff below his/her level.[142]

Differentiation is made between:[138][143]
successful psychopaths - corporate high climbers who tend to have had a relatively privileged background with little risk of legal penalties;
unsuccessful psychopaths - involved in regular crime who tend to have had less privileged backgrounds and much higher risk of legal penalties.

Hare considers newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell to have been a strong candidate as a corporate psychopath.[144]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

For some people, psychopathy appears to give them more power and advantages. We see this in successful psychopaths. I don't think you could make the argument that psychopathy by itself is a disadvantage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 06:51 AM
RE: When is it okay to kill?
(27-06-2015 02:47 AM)jthiret Wrote:  
(27-06-2015 02:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  Selection works on individuals and only on individuals.

For example, if psychopathy provided a significant advantage to individuals but caused the species to go extinct, then that is what would happen.

There is no selection at the species level. And not every trait affects every member of a population.

Selection is not the mechanism that affects the individual. It is genetic variation that acts on the individual. Selection is the mechanism of how the more advantageous trait is selected by allowing the individual with the more advantageous genetic variation to reproduce and thus altering the traits of the population,over time.
So this may just be a miscommunication of the terms I think we are saying the same things,in general , just using the wrong terms.

It is true that not "every" trait affects every member of a population. That is close to the point I was making. Only the most advantageous traits, are reproduced and only "over time" can those specific traits alter the population.
My only assertion was that psychopathy is not an advantageous trait that can lead to enough reproduction to alter the population and over time may be no longer present in our societies.

That last part might be wishful thinking, but my coffee is starting to kick in so who knows......... the wonders of caffeineSmile

OK, then it was the wording that threw me off.

But you've added another statement that I will disagree with:
"Only the most advantageous traits, are reproduced and only "over time" can those specific traits alter the population."

That is simply not true. Cystic fibrosis, haemophilia, Down syndrome, sickle-cell, Tay-Sachs, ...

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 06:52 AM
RE: When is it okay to kill?
(27-06-2015 06:48 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(27-06-2015 01:35 AM)jthiret Wrote:  Psychopathy is a selective disadvantage, because simply put we remove psychopaths from society limiting their ability to reproduce and in turn limiting their effects on the population.

"Although psychopaths in the workplace typically represent only a small percentage of the staff, they are most common at higher levels of corporate organizations and their detrimental effects (for example, increased bullying, conflict, stress, staff turnover, absenteeism, reduction in productivity) often causes a ripple effect throughout an organization, setting the tone for an entire corporate culture.[138]

Academics refer to psychopaths in the workplace as workplace psychopaths, executive psychopaths, corporate psychopaths, business psychopaths, successful psychopaths, office psychopaths, white collar psychopaths, industrial psychopaths, organizational psychopaths or occupational psychopaths.

Hare reports that about 1 per cent of the general population meets the clinical criteria for psychopathy.[139] Hare further claims that the prevalence of psychopaths is higher in the business world than in the general population. Figures of around 3-4% have been cited for more senior positions in business.[42] Even with this small percentage, corporate psychopaths can do enormous damage when they are positioned in senior management roles.[140]

James identifies psychopathy as one of the dark triadic forces in the workplace, the others being narcissism and Machiavellianism.[141]

Workplace psychopaths are often charming to staff above his/her level in the workplace hierarchy but abusive to staff below his/her level.[142]

Differentiation is made between:[138][143]
successful psychopaths - corporate high climbers who tend to have had a relatively privileged background with little risk of legal penalties;
unsuccessful psychopaths - involved in regular crime who tend to have had less privileged backgrounds and much higher risk of legal penalties.

Hare considers newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell to have been a strong candidate as a corporate psychopath.[144]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

For some people, psychopathy appears to give them more power and advantages. We see this in successful psychopaths. I don't think you could make the argument that psychopathy by itself is a disadvantage.


Sieg Heil!

[Image: Rupert-Murdoch-e1405521471762.jpg]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 07:50 AM (This post was last modified: 27-06-2015 08:30 AM by jthiret.)
RE: When is it okay to kill?
(27-06-2015 06:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  But you've added another statement that I will disagree with:
"Only the most advantageous traits, are reproduced and only "over time" can those specific traits alter the population."

That is simply not true. Cystic fibrosis, haemophilia, Down syndrome, sickle-cell, Tay-Sachs, ...

As for the other disorders I am unsure of any research , but for sickle-cell its has actually been shown to have been a selected trait that is advantageous to a degree. N.I.H National Institute of Health

The prevalence of the sickle cell trait is much greater in areas with high incidences of malaria, and affords those populations some protection. Although sickle cell itself has negative implications, it is a genetic variance with selective advantages to local populations. As for hemophilia, people with hemophilia have been known to be more susceptible to infections. Which itself is a non-advantageous genetic variation. However research suggests it is actually causing an advantageous genetic variation in response to Hepatitis C.
The Journal of hematology suggests a prevalence of Hepatitis C antibodies in Hemophiliacs.

It appears that the genetic traits we thought to be non-advantageous do have some selective advantages. This is not conclusive, but it does serve to show that selection of advantageous traits to be passed on do have side effects. Those side effects are more likely why ,specifically in hemophilia, its hereditary transmission is becoming more difficult. This difficulty is more prominent in women as they require a dual gene mutation in order to develop hemophilia. Genetics home research @N.I.H.

“ moral virtue comesabout as a result of habit.” --Aristotle

Secular Ethos
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: